Issues Simplified in Chromium Picolinate Nutritional Supplement Case

JDS Therapeutics, LLC et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:12-cv-09002-JSR (Dkt: 136)

Judge Rakoff ruled on summary judgment motions in advance of a scheduled March 10, 2014 trial, in a case involving U.S. Patents Nos. 5,948,772 ("Chromium picolinate compositions and uses thereof"), 6,136,317 ("Chromium picolinate compositions"), 6,251,889 (same), 5,087,623 ("Chromium picolinate treatment"), 6,143,301 ("Chromium picolinate and uses thereof"), RE39,480 ("Chromium/biotin treatment of type II diabetes"). He denied summary judgment on no literal infringement, but he narrowed the infringement case by ruling that the presence of niacinamide in Centrum® products cannot serve as a basis for literal infringement, and that plaintiffs’ failure to provide test results showing the presence of nicotinic acid precludes a charge of literal infringement. He denied summary judgment of invalidity.

The court found plaintiffs’ claims of unjust enrichment, misappropriate of trade secrets, breach of contract and common law quasi-contract unjust enrichment time-barred under New York’s statute of limitations, but declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ common law unfair competition claim. The court also rejected defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the defenses of laches and equitable estoppel, and said that it would supply its reasoning in a written decision before the scheduled March 10, 2014 trial.

The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.